In a recent announcement calling for civil asset forfeiture reform at the federal level, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights cited research from the Nevada Policy Research Institute as evidence of the harms caused by the practice.

Specifically, the Commission — an independent, bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency — condemned forfeiture as having "racially disproportionate outcomes" that leaves most victims with "no practical way to contest the seizure of such assets," based on NPRI research.

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice whereby law enforcement can seize property — and personally profit from its subsequent forfeiture — without even charging the owner with a crime. By imposing the presumption of guilt on innocent property owners who have had their property seized, civil asset forfeiture perverts one of the foundational principles of the U.S. justice system, according to NPRI policy analyst Daniel Honchariw.

NPRI is thrilled to learn that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has joined the overwhelming, bipartisan consensus of those calling for an end to civil asset forfeiture.

"The principle of being innocent until proven guilty is a bedrock of the U.S. justice system and must be defended at all costs," says Honchariw. "The Commission is correct to call for an end to the abusive and un-American practice of civil asset forfeiture, and we are honored to have produced research that has helped shine a light on how the program actually operates."

Issues

Michael Schaus is communications director at the Nevada Policy Research Institute and is responsible for managing the organization’s messaging with the public, the media and NPRI’s membership.

Prior to joining NPRI, Michael worked in media as a national columnist, a political humorist and a conservative talk show host in Denver, Colorado. Active in both print and radio, he shared his insights and free-market economics perspective with large local and national audiences.

Michael became interested in economic theory earlier in life while employed in the financial sector. As the liaison between a local community bank and the Federal Reserve, he acquired an in-depth understanding of just how manipulative big government can be toward industry and enterprise. It was that experience with big-government intervention that initially led him into public-affairs commentary.

As communications director for NPRI, Michael brings that same level of dedication and enthusiasm to promoting NPRI’s policy solutions in support of limited and accountable government.